1. Title, director and release year? ‘Blue Gold: World Water Wars,’ Directed by Sam Bozzo (2008) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? With increasing resource use and the world’s growing population, resources like water are being depleted faster than ever. And by having a comparable dependency with oil, water is becoming a commodity that’s worth fighting over. Corporations, private investors, and governments are competing for control of the diminishing supply, while citizens are fighting for what may be the last few drops. The creation of the profit driven water “industry” is being torn by privatization of water and the battle between citizens and countries that can and cannot pay for water delivery. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political/legal: - Who can reserve rights for water supplies, let alone controlling a country’s water from another continent via privatization? - Corporate rights make them one in the same with citizens (e.g. bottling companies that fight court cases about their justified presence in communities, robbing them of their water and giving nothing back; appeals are thrown left and right, and companies are allowed to walk because of their political connections and profitable involvement) Economic/behavioral: the exploitation by companies in controlling available water resources and not allowing communities to use it, forcing them to purchase it in other forms (e.g. how Coke is cheaper in Mexico than water; the company avoids the fact that water isn’t widely available, so allowing the people to depend on the soda limits the amount of water they even have available pre-production and healthy decisions: all the water that was available isn’t being made available to them, but rather it’s being put into production to make the soda) Technological: with the diminishing supply, how are we expected to 1) control amounts used and what’s being put back into the supplies, 2) clean what’s available (pollution, salt water) without over-extending other resources (e.g. oil), and 3) possibly find a way to produce water efficiently? Companies are also getting on the bandwagon to find the best way to clean polluted water, so once their method has been established, they can charge anything they want to provide water to those who need it. Behavioral/cultural: - the mining of groundwater faster than it can replenish itself; we have come to terms that water resources are nearing their end, but need to implement alternative ways of allowing the water to replenish itself and conserving what is available - the cleanliness and health connotations associated with water usage and cleaning products; if these weren’t available in such excess (and with all of their ingredients) that we have now, people would most likely be outraged by the lack of products available (which could lead into the conversion of companies who currently make unsafe products to make those that are water and environmentally friendly) 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - how much I take advantage of water, comparing my situation with those of people in other countries; you never really think about it until someone tells you how fortunate you really are…and then you just feel bad about even taking a shower - how everything that we do somehow affects water, which inevitably gets transmitted back to us (e.g. pollution) and causes a whole slew of health related problems (miscarriage, decreased sperm counts, etc.); also, the environmental problems that are affecting water collection (extreme weather/harsh conditions, possibly related to global warming, erode the land and deplete it of its water and water-absorbing capabilities) - statistics of how many liters of water were used to make products: 350,000 for a car, 32 for a microchip; it’s astounding to realize that the same amount of water used to make a single car could probably fill a few public swimming pools - water was defined as a good in a conference in Dublin (1992)…are we going to have to apply this to air as well? It seems that all the resources we’re ruining are coming to an end, and eventually someone’s going to be fighting over the last remaining supplies to survive 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? - Use of desalination: how do you tell people who are fighting for water that they are only allowed to desalinate so many gallons? It seems far-fetched, but the risk of using up too much ocean water is feasible if it’s used beyond a small-scale replenishment, thus destroying ecosystems, endangering species, and relying another finite and non-renewable resource. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? - More personal efforts of conservation along with local actions (community efforts) that are currently in place and aimed at working towards finding a solution to the problem - Finding the cost analysis of proposed solutions; if they are reasonable, possibly finding a way to make them more available to communities that should be the leaders of the shift 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? It’s directed best towards those who personally use a lot of water (households), making them rethink their choices, as well as opening them up to the world of even greater usage (car manufacturers, etc.) in which anything and everything they use relies on exorbitant amounts of water for production, let alone maintenance. Clearly different shower heads are an easy temporary solution, but what about the others ways the people can start making small changes on their own? The introduction of those might get them thinking more about how they view their usage, as well as how they can help conserve it. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? - Proactive and environmentally conscious stance taken by Project Blue Alternative: where holes are dug (especially during summer camps when labor is available) to accumulate water, providing the creation of greener spaces where they were once barren; green spaces created also provide recycling and cleaning of water, possible farming land, and the replenishment of ecosystems lost - Alternative pavement solutions to allow water to be put back into the land where it may be cleaned and brought back into lakes/streams/etc. - Learning to live within the limits of water supplies and implementing conservation efforts as soon as possible [On a vacation to the BVI, the house my friends and I stayed in relied solely on rain water: it made me realize how precious of a commodity it was, and even with such restrictions, islands were able to thrive with limited resources while supporting a huge tourist industry.] 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? More discussion of feasible technological advances instead of just the blatant cutting-back of usage aimed at conservation would have made the audience feel that while there are companies racing to find the most efficient cleaning method, there are still methods already in place.
‘Blue Gold: World Water Wars,’ Directed by Sam Bozzo (2008)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
With increasing resource use and the world’s growing population, resources like water are being depleted faster than ever. And by having a comparable dependency with oil, water is becoming a commodity that’s worth fighting over. Corporations, private investors, and governments are competing for control of the diminishing supply, while citizens are fighting for what may be the last few drops. The creation of the profit driven water “industry” is being torn by privatization of water and the battle between citizens and countries that can and cannot pay for water delivery.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political/legal:
- Who can reserve rights for water supplies, let alone controlling a country’s water from another continent via privatization?
- Corporate rights make them one in the same with citizens (e.g. bottling companies that fight court cases about their justified presence in communities, robbing them of their water and giving nothing back; appeals are thrown left and right, and companies are allowed to walk because of their political connections and profitable involvement)
Economic/behavioral: the exploitation by companies in controlling available water resources and not allowing communities to use it, forcing them to purchase it in other forms (e.g. how Coke is cheaper in Mexico than water; the company avoids the fact that water isn’t widely available, so allowing the people to depend on the soda limits the amount of water they even have available pre-production and healthy decisions: all the water that was available isn’t being made available to them, but rather it’s being put into production to make the soda)
Technological: with the diminishing supply, how are we expected to 1) control amounts used and what’s being put back into the supplies, 2) clean what’s available (pollution, salt water) without over-extending other resources (e.g. oil), and 3) possibly find a way to produce water efficiently? Companies are also getting on the bandwagon to find the best way to clean polluted water, so once their method has been established, they can charge anything they want to provide water to those who need it.
Behavioral/cultural:
- the mining of groundwater faster than it can replenish itself; we have come to terms that water resources are nearing their end, but need to implement alternative ways of allowing the water to replenish itself and conserving what is available
- the cleanliness and health connotations associated with water usage and cleaning products; if these weren’t available in such excess (and with all of their ingredients) that we have now, people would most likely be outraged by the lack of products available (which could lead into the conversion of companies who currently make unsafe products to make those that are water and environmentally friendly)
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- how much I take advantage of water, comparing my situation with those of people in other countries; you never really think about it until someone tells you how fortunate you really are…and then you just feel bad about even taking a shower
- how everything that we do somehow affects water, which inevitably gets transmitted back to us (e.g. pollution) and causes a whole slew of health related problems (miscarriage, decreased sperm counts, etc.); also, the environmental problems that are affecting water collection (extreme weather/harsh conditions, possibly related to global warming, erode the land and deplete it of its water and water-absorbing capabilities)
- statistics of how many liters of water were used to make products: 350,000 for a car, 32 for a microchip; it’s astounding to realize that the same amount of water used to make a single car could probably fill a few public swimming pools
- water was defined as a good in a conference in Dublin (1992)…are we going to have to apply this to air as well? It seems that all the resources we’re ruining are coming to an end, and eventually someone’s going to be fighting over the last remaining supplies to survive
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- Use of desalination: how do you tell people who are fighting for water that they are only allowed to desalinate so many gallons? It seems far-fetched, but the risk of using up too much ocean water is feasible if it’s used beyond a small-scale replenishment, thus destroying ecosystems, endangering species, and relying another finite and non-renewable resource.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- More personal efforts of conservation along with local actions (community efforts) that are currently in place and aimed at working towards finding a solution to the problem
- Finding the cost analysis of proposed solutions; if they are reasonable, possibly finding a way to make them more available to communities that should be the leaders of the shift
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
It’s directed best towards those who personally use a lot of water (households), making them rethink their choices, as well as opening them up to the world of even greater usage (car manufacturers, etc.) in which anything and everything they use relies on exorbitant amounts of water for production, let alone maintenance. Clearly different shower heads are an easy temporary solution, but what about the others ways the people can start making small changes on their own? The introduction of those might get them thinking more about how they view their usage, as well as how they can help conserve it.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Proactive and environmentally conscious stance taken by Project Blue Alternative: where holes are dug (especially during summer camps when labor is available) to accumulate water, providing the creation of greener spaces where they were once barren; green spaces created also provide recycling and cleaning of water, possible farming land, and the replenishment of ecosystems lost
- Alternative pavement solutions to allow water to be put back into the land where it may be cleaned and brought back into lakes/streams/etc.
- Learning to live within the limits of water supplies and implementing conservation efforts as soon as possible [On a vacation to the BVI, the house my friends and I stayed in relied solely on rain water: it made me realize how precious of a commodity it was, and even with such restrictions, islands were able to thrive with limited resources while supporting a huge tourist industry.]
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
More discussion of feasible technological advances instead of just the blatant cutting-back of usage aimed at conservation would have made the audience feel that while there are companies racing to find the most efficient cleaning method, there are still methods already in place.